why are Rickenbacker basses such a touchy subject?

[Musky]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1384619228' post='2278824'] To put some context and balance to all of that, the Hall family actually acquired Rickenbacker in 1953, way before Japenese companies started copying Rickenbackers. I remain in the apparent minority who cannot see any problem with a company protecting its own design rights. [/quote]
I have no problem with RIC protecting their design rights either but trademark laws in the UK apply when it's trade by [i]way of business[/i], i.e. not applicable to private sellers.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Musky

[Iheartreverb]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1384735091' post='2280219']

I have no problem with RIC protecting their design rights either but trademark laws in the UK apply when it's trade by [i]way of business[/i], i.e. not applicable to private sellers.
[/quote]

So all these threatening emails that people get sent when trying to sell Ric copies on gumtree/eBay uk are just all mouth, they couldn't actually do anything?

[BigRedX]

If RIC really had any legal teeth in this country the 5 Rockinbetter guitars that are hanging on the wall in my local music shop wouldn't be there, and both the shop and the distributor for the instruments would be in fairly serious financial trouble.

However when it comes to sales on the web RIC has far more leverage and most web sites and their 3rd party suppliers (hosting service etc.) want an easy life and it is simpler for them to comply with Mr Halls demands and pull the ads.

[Musky]

[quote name='Iheartreverb' timestamp='1384764480' post='2280299']


So all these threatening emails that people get sent when trying to sell Ric copies on gumtree/eBay uk are just all mouth, they couldn't actually do anything?
[/quote]
As far as I'm aware (and I'm no lawyer) statute law just refers to trade, but this has been interpreted by the courts as trade by way of business (the act specifically refers to manufacturers, importers and distributors).

There's nothing to prevent anyone from testing this interpretation however, which would inevitably prove expensive for both parties. Even if a private individual won the case it would prove to be a costly and draining experience.

For websites that could be seen as intermediaries the situation is slightly different, in that the L'Oriel vs Ebay case has muddied the waters. Again, it would take a court case to establish with any certainty whether the site could be seen as facilitating the sale and thus in breach of trademark laws. It's far easier to cave in to threatening letters than go through the cost and stress of a court case.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Musky

[Muzz]

I had a 4001 from 79 till about 86, and I loved it at the time, but moved on - this seems to be a common scenario with most of the 'iconic' users, who are very often quoted as users, but in reality used them in the past but now no longer do. No problem there, they're a Marmite instrument, which woudn't be half the issue it is without the sterling* efforts of Mr John Hall, the Rickenbacker Chief Sales Prevention Officer...


* See what I did there - I'm having a Ball here...

[pst62]

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1384556796' post='2278282']
No controversy - just there's only one bloke, Chris Squier, who ever got a decent sound out of one
[/quote]

I'm guessing you've not heard Paul Gray then John?

[ambient]

I've always thought they looked cool, never actually played one though. The necks always looked very slim to me, so I probably wouldn't like one anyway.

Are they likely to produce a more modern variant sometime in the near future, and maybe add a string or 2 ?

[badboy1984]

I respect Ric basses but unfortunately I've tried one and is not my cup of tea so I moved on.

[CamdenRob]

We haven't had a good clang plank thread for a while...

[Stag]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1384733813' post='2280212']
I have no problem with Rick protecting their design rights.

The problem I have is that Rickenbacker aggressively pursue private sellers of old Ricky copies that were made *before* Rickenbackers legal rights to protection were granted and who are not breaking any British laws, and all the while there are loads of shops openly selling modern Ricky copies who apparently just get left to it by John Hall. It's a joke.
[/quote]

+1

This is totally my appraisal of the situation. I can understand them going postal over new Ricky copies, but chasing private sales of old 70's Jap fakers that have already been sold once... twice... maybe multiple times? Thats just daft.

[martthebass]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1384733813' post='2280212']
I have no problem with Rick protecting their design rights.

and all the while there are loads of shops openly selling modern Ricky copies who apparently just get left to it by John Hall. It's a joke.
[/quote]

I believe RIC have started to play catch up on some of these. The 'local' shop to me had a significant number of Rockinbetters on the wall and recently sold them all off as a job lot when they received a number of cease and dissist mails from RIC.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='martthebass' timestamp='1384777998' post='2280522']
I believe RIC have started to play catch up on some of these. The 'local' shop to me had a significant number of Rockinbetters on the wall and recently sold them all off as a job lot when they received a number of cease and dissist mails from RIC.
[/quote]

Interesting... I shall have to go and see if my local shop still has theirs.

[badboy1984]

Rockinbetters are pretty good actually. I personally think the Ric company are not too confident with their own products against the copies ......

Like Fender and Gibson, they know the people will buy there products even tho their are bunch of decent copies outside.

Edited November 18, 2013 by badboy1984

[Mr Arkadin]

I have a 4003 exactly like gsgbass', really nice, but I do the whole thing a bit OTT. This is how companies get bad reps - just look at Monster Cables and their tireless cease and desist orders.

Seems actually that as UK law is different to US it might be worth ignoring them and seeing if they really want to spend the dosh hiring hiring a UK solicitor and taking it to the high court. Unless they want to try and extradite the shop owner so they can deal with it in the US. I doubt anything would happen.

I'm not even sure what standing a cease and desist letter has anyway, especially when issued from a different country. You'd have to get a judge to issue a Cease and Desist Order for it to be legally binding, which would mean RIC proving their case that these basses are illegal under UK law.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Mr Arkadin

[BigRedX]

[quote name='badboy1984' timestamp='1384780707' post='2280574']
Rockinbetters are pretty good actually. I personally think the Ric company are not too confident with their own products against the copies ......

Like Fender and Gibson, they know the people will buy there products even tho their are bunch of decent copies outside.
[/quote]

Don't for a moment think that Fender and Gibson wouldn't be trying to stop copies of their classic instruments if they could. However they did too little and left it too late when it counted and now have to make the best of the consequences.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Mr Arkadin' timestamp='1384782834' post='2280607']
I have a 4003 exactly like gsgbass', really nice, but I do the whole thing a bit OTT. This is how companies get bad reps - just look at Monster Cables and their tireless cease and desist orders.

Seems actually that as UK law is different to US it might be worth ignoring them and seeing if they really want to spend the dosh hiring hiring a UK solicitor and taking it to the high court. Unless they want to try and extradite the shop owner so they can deal with it in the US. I doubt anything would happen.

I'm not even sure what standing a cease and desist letter has anyway, especially when issued from a different country. You'd have to get a judge to issue a Cease and Desist Order for it to be legally binding, which would mean RIC proving their case that these basses are illegal under UK law.
[/quote]

Very easy to say when it's not your money and business at stake.

Also you conveniently ignore the fact that these days no business exists in isolation and requires the services of lots of other companies to remain effective. I'm sure RIC can make things difficult for any UK business that tried to stand up to them without even bothering the UK law courts.

[icastle]

[quote name='Mr Arkadin' timestamp='1384782834' post='2280607']
Seems actually that as UK law is different to US it might be worth ignoring them and seeing if they really want to spend the dosh hiring hiring a UK solicitor and taking it to the high court.
[/quote]

Stick £500K into the Basschat piggy bank as a downpayment and we'll test that out for you.

[badboy1984]

BC made the right decision on the Ric thing to avoid any problem etc.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Mr Arkadin' timestamp='1384782834' post='2280607']
I have a 4003 exactly like gsgbass', really nice, but I do the whole thing a bit OTT. This is how companies get bad reps - just look at Monster Cables and their tireless cease and desist orders.

Seems actually that as UK law is different to US it might be worth ignoring them and seeing if they really want to spend the dosh hiring hiring a UK solicitor and taking it to the high court. Unless they want to try and extradite the shop owner so they can deal with it in the US. I doubt anything would happen.

I'm not even sure what standing a cease and desist letter has anyway, especially when issued from a different country. You'd have to get a judge to issue a Cease and Desist Order for it to be legally binding, which would mean RIC proving their case that these basses are illegal under UK law.
[/quote]

Our band started using a JD inspired logo/sticker. We received a cease and desist. After thinking about it for a while we respectfully decided to tell them to them poke it. The sticker campaign continues and we've not heard anything back since. Of course maybe they found out that we are personally responsible for a large amount of sales.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1384784732' post='2280643']
Our band started using a JD inspired logo/sticker. We received a cease and desist. After thinking about it for a while we respectfully decided to tell them to them poke it. The sticker campaign continues and we've not heard anything back since. Of course maybe they found out that we are personally responsible for a large amount of sales.
[/quote]

Or they could simply be waiting to see if your band is going to be worth suing...

Edited November 18, 2013 by BigRedX

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1384785415' post='2280652']
Or they could simply be waiting to see if your band is going to be worth suing...
[/quote]
Haha maybe.
Although considering their latest ad campaign about Jack being there during all the greatest rock moments they might be glad of the association by that time.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1384782876' post='2280608']


Don't for a moment think that Fender and Gibson wouldn't be trying to stop copies of their classic instruments if they could. However they did too little and left it too late when it counted and now have to make the best of the consequences.
[/quote]
Which id say is a massive increase in sales of not only lusted after 'proper' fenders but all the cheaper mex and squier versions too,not a bad situation for them to deal with that Ric haven't.

[badboy1984]

If Rickenbacker have some kind of cheap copies that made by them like epiphone and Squier or even made by another country, i think more people would buy them instead of third party copies ........

Warwick start producing actual warwick bass that is not made in german as well .......

This is strictly my opinion, some maybe disagree.

Edited November 18, 2013 by badboy1984

[Bassassin]

[quote name='badboy1984' timestamp='1384788182' post='2280699']
If Rickenbacker have some kind of cheap copies that made by them like epiphone and Squier or even made by another country, i think more people would buy them instead of third party copies [/quote]
You're probably right but it's not a market RIC have any need of, or interest in supplying - as it is they struggle to fulfil demand for the "real" ones! John Hall's determination to keep RIC small & ,maintain the high quality reputation (deserved or otherwise) is a stance I respect, despite him being, err - [i]unprofessional[/i] - in other aspects of his role as CEO!

[quote name='badboy1984' timestamp='1384780707' post='2280574']
Rockinbetters are pretty good actually. I personally think the Ric company are not too confident with their own products against the copies ......
[/quote]
As far as some of the old MIJ basses are concerned, it's a fair point - the Matsumoku neck-through Fakers were head & shoulders above what Rickenbacker were typically producing in the early/mid 70s - there's even a 70s review of a Kimbara-branded copy knocking around that says as much. These copies had functional dual truss rods, necks & body wings that didn't de-laminate, tuners that didn't explode, and even tailpieces that didn't bend.

I have limited experience with the current Chinese & Korean copies but imagine them to have the same manufacturing consistency as other good-quality mass-produced instruments from similar sources - plus the benefit of more modern hardware & components than RIC's products.

The main reason though that Hall makes a public display of Faker-chasing is the US trademark legislation, which requires that a trademark owner must be seen to be pursuing and challenging infringements. If any copy, old or new, goes unchallenged, ultimately the trademark will enter the public domain, meaning that anybody & everybody is free to use it. Fender & Gibson did not take Japanese copies seriously in the 70s until it was too late, which is why there has been 4 decades of relentless Precision, Jazz, Strat, LP etc cloning.

J.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Bassassin

[simon1964]

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1384795274' post='2280810']
You're probably right but it's not a market RIC have any need of, or interest in supplying - as it is they struggle to fulfil demand for the "real" ones! John Hall's determination to keep RIC small & ,maintain the high quality reputation (deserved or otherwise) is a stance I respect, despite him being, err - [i]unprofessional[/i] - in other aspects of his role as CEO!


[/quote]

Exactly this. Demand for Rickenbackers still significantly exceeds supply, in spite of JH's efforts to make it otherwise in the UK. This means they can work to a business model of selling relatively small volume at a significant premium. They simply have no need to enter the volume, lower margain, market.